Author Topic: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?  (Read 14884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #210 on: June 30, 2014, 05:54:PM »
 Don't you think that if Jeremy had been guilty,he would also have dropped Julie in it too by saying that " she knew of his plan " months ago,but chose to do nothing about it ? And why didn't she ?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #211 on: June 30, 2014, 06:12:PM »
Bringing Julie down was an option for Jeremy. But it is admitting certain guilt.

Julie can always deny his accusations. If guilty Julie's sentence will be much more lenient as she was miles away in London. She would only be guilty of knowing about his plans. She said she knew anyway, but did not believe him.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 06:18:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #212 on: June 30, 2014, 08:16:PM »
 So,she didn't believe him,or chose not to believe him for fear of incriminating herself,which is it to be ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #213 on: June 30, 2014, 08:19:PM »
 If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #214 on: June 30, 2014, 08:22:PM »
If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?

He would admit his guilt and then say Julie was an accomplice hoping that she would go to prison to?

No most people won't admit guilt instead of fighting guilt.  Your claim that most people would do such is not borne out at all by past cases let alone human nature which is to deny guilt and try to avoid prison.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #215 on: June 30, 2014, 08:23:PM »
There is no way was or ever is going to admit guilt. If that means he cannot incriminate Julie, so be it.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #217 on: June 30, 2014, 09:22:PM »
He would admit his guilt and then say Julie was an accomplice hoping that she would go to prison to?

No most people won't admit guilt instead of fighting guilt.  Your claim that most people would do such is not borne out at all by past cases let alone human nature which is to deny guilt and try to avoid prison.
Did lookout say "most people" or "most definitely"?

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #218 on: June 30, 2014, 09:27:PM »
There is no way was or ever is going to admit guilt. If that means he cannot incriminate Julie, so be it.
If I was guilty of such a crime (heaven forbid, I wouldn't be able to live with myself) I wouldn't waste all these years telling everyone I was innocent. I would be busy planning how to get out of that place and escaping abroad somewhere. Come to think of it I would do exactly the same if I was innocent.  To be innocent and free is better that to be innocent and locked up for life. I'd be on the run by now if it were me.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #219 on: December 21, 2014, 12:05:PM »
Reading the judges summing up again, I had not realised the prosecution thought their case was overwhelming without the silencer. The relatives thought this to.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #220 on: December 21, 2014, 02:56:PM »
If he'd been guilty then he most definitely would have roped Julie in,without a doubt,wouldn't you ?

You are right - he would not have told her unless he had a sure fire way of keeping her quiet . So for example helping with the sleeping tablet plot . If it ever existed , because that's an easy one to make up that needs no proof.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44433
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #221 on: May 07, 2015, 06:06:PM »
For everyone.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.